The country’s foreign policy is centred on human rights, democracy, international law, peace and an Africa-first perspective. Photo: File
When the West insists on lecturing us about democracy, we must remember Sharpeville. When they speak of human rights, we must remind them of the Gaza genocide. South Africa’s foreign policy should not be a diplomatic accessory — it is a policy underpinned by a painful history of defiance, exile and blood.
Since its genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, and refusal to parrot Nato’s script on the war between Russia and the Ukraine, South Africa has faced mounting pressure from the US and its allies. Their outrage is less about ethics and more about egos bruised by a country that refuses to kneel.
But our stance is not new. It was Nelson Mandela’s democratic government that set the tone for our foreign policy, which was centred on human rights, democracy, international law, peace and an Africa-first perspective. This positioning allowed post-apartheid South Africa to wield both soft and hard power where principle demanded it, from arms control advocacy to firm censure of abuses.
Mandela’s 1990 interview with ABC’s Ted Koppel remains relevant. When American diplomat and political writer Ken Adelman criticised the ANC’s ties to leaders such as Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s chairperson Yasser Arafat and Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Mandela replied: “One of the mistakes which some political analysts make is to think that their enemies should be our enemies.”
He reminded the world that these leaders had placed resources at the ANC’s disposal — not rhetoric, but real support for liberation. Loyalty to them was earned, not borrowed.
In 1994, South Africa joined the Non-Aligned Movement, which is now the largest bloc of countries outside the UN. Its principles, which are sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-interference, peaceful coexistence and support for anti-colonial struggles, remain the backbone of our diplomacy. The organisation gives South Africa diplomatic cover to maintain independent relationships, even when they annoy powerful states.
During apartheid, many Western governments, including the US, maintained economic and strategic ties with the racist regime. Mandela and other leaders of the liberation movement were branded terrorists; his name was removed from the US terror list only in 2008. Tokyo Sexwale’s name remains there to this day.
In contrast, the Soviet Union openly backed liberation movements across Africa. Its support included military training, arms, financial aid, education and diplomatic advocacy. That solidarity forged deep loyalty among ANC leaders and those ties remain strong.
Russia, Brics and the multipolar dream
South Africa and Russia re-established formal diplomatic relations in 1994 after the dismantling of the Soviet Union. While trade volumes remain modest, political cooperation has been consistent, underpinned by shared values of non-alignment and a multipolar world order.
Russia was a founding member of the Brazil, Russia, India, and China grouping and championed South Africa’s inclusion in 2010, forming Brics. This bond has allowed President Cyril Ramaphosa to play a meaningful role in facilitating negotiations regarding Russia’s war in Ukraine. Few heads of state can boast of fielding calls from US President Donald Trump, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which is a testament to South Africa’s diplomatic weight.
Brics has become a key platform for coordinating trade, development finance (through the New Development Bank) and calls for a more balanced global order. The historical bond between Moscow and Pretoria still shapes perceptions and policy choices.
In 2024, Brics expanded to include Ethiopia, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates, and it now represents 27% of global GDP and nearly half the world’s population. The group advocates for reformed multilateralism, challenging Western dominance in institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Iran and the manufactured outrage
A recent official visit to Iran by South Africa’s army chief, General Rudzani Maphwanya, sparked a storm of manufactured outrage. His comments during the trip were either misunderstood or deliberately distorted. At best, those who criticised him showed ignorance of military diplomacy; at worst, they ignored the historical ties between Iran and South Africa.
Iran supported the ANC after the Iranian revolution in 1979, cutting ties with the apartheid government and embracing anti-colonial solidarity. In a letter dated 13 February 1979, Oliver Tambo wrote to Ayatollah Khomeini: “On behalf of the African National Congress and the oppressed masses of South Africa we express to you our immense joy at the glorious success of the Iranian revolution.
“Your victory demonstrates the irresistible power of a people united in the pursuit of a just cause. Your historic victory has shattered the infamous conspiracy of Reza Pahlevi and Vorster-Botha against our two peoples which guaranteed the racists their soil. Your victory therefore constitutes an enormous contribution to the success of our struggle against a brutal racist fascist dictatorship.”
The shared anti-colonial and anti-imperialist values have been a consistent foundation of the relationship between South Africa and Iran. Today, cooperation between the two countries includes oil trade, industrial collaboration and diplomatic support formalised through the Joint Commission for Cooperation and strengthened by Iran’s Brics membership. Both Tehran and Pretoria frame their partnership in moral and historical terms, advocating for justice, equality and a multipolar world.
It beggars belief that Maphwanya’s comments could be construed as misrepresenting South Africa’s foreign policy. His trip was officially sanctioned by the department of defence and so it is no surprise that, according to media reports, his actions have been cleared after a sit-down with Ramaphosa.
The backlash was a two-day circus designed to catch Washington’s attention and the goal was to influence our foreign policy so that we would cut ties with Iran and, ultimately, sever ties with Brics. We experienced a similar “storm in a teacup” regarding Putin and the Brics Summit in 2023. Putin could not attend in person because the International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for his arrest for war crimes.
The ‘white genocide’ myth and US pressure
During Trump’s second term as president, tensions with Washington boiled over. South Africa was accused of conducting a “white genocide” and forced land seizures from white farmers. This was blatantly false propaganda, peddled by minority right-wing group AfriForum. The “white genocide” is as real as the Easter Bunny, yet it’s been weaponised to try to bully South Africa into abandoning progressive policies such as employment equity, affirmative action and broad-based black economic empowerment.
Tariffs have become the cudgel. Despite evidence refuting the white genocide narrative and clarifying the need for restorative justice through land reform, 30% tariffs were imposed anyway. Negotiations continue, but the outcome seems pre-determined.
Instead of succumbing to in-fighting and the confusion deliberately sown by racist opportunists, South Africa must hold the line on non-alignment, on human rights and on trade diversification. This stance honours Mandela’s vision, aligns with Ramaphosa’s economic diplomacy and it echoes the co-ordinated defiance of fellow Brics and Global South nations such as Brazil and India, who have stood firm despite facing similar penalties.
The US appears unable to accept that the era of unilateral dominance is fading. A multipolar world is emerging one that offers trade alternatives and repositions nations as equals, not subordinates. This shift threatens the old order, and that is precisely why the Trump administration has grown hostile. The US is not responding to principle, it is desperately attempting to reclaim its hegemonic grip over the Global South.
Earlier this year, when Trump signed an executive order castigating South Africa, Ramaphosa responded in parliament: “South Africa will not be bullied.” This attitude should shape our posture as we navigate the shifting planes of the geo-political space.
We can surrender to the demands of Western imperialists — or we can assert our right to be a sovereign nation by deepening alliances with countries that share our values.
We are not a nation of cowards and our democracy, as imperfect as it is, exists because generations of brave souls sacrificed themselves for a cause greater than their own. Our sovereignty is not a diplomatic accessory, it is sacred because blood was spilt. Our government, with the support of South Africans, must stand firm against any nation, no matter how powerful, that demands we trade our dignity for expediency.
Phakamile Hlubi-Majola is a professional communicator and former journalist. She is writing in her personal capacity.